This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
American Research Review, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Autumn, 1975), pp. 81-101 Published by: The Latin American Studies Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2502795 Accessed: 13/09/2010 15:43
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamer. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Latin American Studies Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin American Research Review.
THE CULTURE: PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN Ortega and Unamuno in Mexico* Patrick Romanell
University Texasat El Paso of
FOR A NATIONAL
In 1943 thereappeared in Mexico City the first book in Spanish on the storyof philosophy in Mexico written froma nonscholasticor lay standpoint. Its titleis, simply,Historia la filosofia Mexico,the authorbeing de en Samuel Ramos (1897-1959) of Zita4cuaro, a Michoaca4n, philosophy professor at the National Universityof Mexico. The pioneering work is tentative and modestin content but firm and ambitiousin intent.Itopens and closes with the same fixed idea in mind: To encourage Mexican thinkers develop theirown philosophyby integrating to European phinationalspirit; losophywiththeir thatis, bynationalizing philosophyitself. Put negativelyand more effectively, whole point of the author's the endeavor is to get Mexican intellectualsout of the traditionalhabit of themto thinkhenceforth imitating philosophies of othersby inviting the on their own two feetabout thefundamental problemsofMexicoherself. Although some allusions to the nationalizationof Mexican philosophy appear here and therein Ramos's two immediatephilosophical predecessors,AntonioCaso and JoseVasconcelos,1thereis no doubt that Samuel Ramos is the actual founderof the contemporary movementin Mexico forthe Mexicanization of culturein general and philosophy in particular. This is clear, for one thing, from his historicalsurvey of philosophy in Mexico, inasmuch as he is so frankabout his own role in her intellectual storythathe refers to explicitly himself and his particular contribution under the heading "la filosofiade la cultura mexicana"2 (which heading is, incidentally,the reason for the titleof the present work). Ramos's interestin the philosophy of Mexican culture is tantamount, of course, to his ideological campaign for a genuine national philosophy expressiveof the Mexican spirit.Moreover,whateverreser*Presentedat the FifthNational Meeting of the Latin AmericanStudies Association, San Francisco,California,16 November 1974.
Samuel Ramos was nota cheap propagandistbuta who did not allow the love of his country interfere to with patriotic critic his love of truth. this in of and in thefirst them. he is no "Adam" in philosophy.summarizesOrtega's philosophicaland culturalinfluencein Mexico in the followingneat fashion:3 which between Anintellectual 1925and 1930felt generation begantoactpublicly romanticism Caso and Vasconcelos. found they did to In perplexity. the phenomenon in his Mexican surroundings. that Ortega Gassetcamealsotosolvethis y in de Assemthe of tiempo. but critical revision their doctrines. Interestingly 82 . addition. hence. was a peopleand couldbe defined these little little Mexican to culture: nationalist movement which being was extended by in with in inpoetry DiegoRivera. Beforeshowing the significant bearingofthispassage on themaking of the mind ofRamos. a result theRevolution.Justas Ortega had or of reactedas a youthagainst the ostensibleanti-intellectualism his Spanish surroundings. of After a dissatisfied thephilosophical with of anti-intellectualism groundless. and in his briefpanorama of its Mexican of periods he is quick to acknowledge the indebtednessof his own generation to the notable Spanish philosopher and social critic.starting in terms: had It Mexico beendiscovered. as Our Mexican author. thenovel with Ram6n L6pez Velarde. spiritual as of in around1915. in culture was promoting efforts that and all a been talking forming national of did intothisideal picture of Meanwhile direction. it should be observed in passing thatthereis a noteworthy biographicalparallel between Ortega's negativeresponse to the Spanish generationof 1898 and his disciple's revoltagainst the Mexican generationof 1910 (the Centenario the Ateneo).opposedtotheconcrete problem andtime. Ramos was the leading philosophical spokesman forhis Mexican He generationofContemporauneos. painting the from Ministry Education. del they In a had change been vital reason.On thecontrary. bling of thatMexicangeneration foundthe epistemological justification a national philosophy. philosophy notappearto fit the from standnationalism becauseshe has alwayspretended lookat things to of determinationsspace pointofmanin general.Research Review LatinAmerican vations we may have to his chosen projectof nationalizingphilosophy and culturein Mexico. sees himselfhistorically an but intellectual pioneer in the movementtowardla mexicanidad.Vasconcelos himself. byshowing historicity philosophy hisEl tema nuestro in del he theseideas withsomeothers had expounded Meditaciones Quijote. is tosay. which. y in encountered solution theconflict his doctrine the to of ciones Quijote. booksof the they notwishtoreturn classical rationalism.tohistory. MeditaJos6 Ortega Gassetbeganto arrive Mexico.was becoming clarified themindsof goingon. has a keen appreciationofthe he history Westernphilosophy. Ortega's pervasive influenceon contemporaryMexican thoughtsince 1925 is crucialforunderstandingthe work of Ramos.so did the young Ramos do likewise against the same enough. to be sure. of had with Mariano Azuela. Jose Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955) of Madrid.
a as superiorway oflivinga fulllife. a way to arrive at "the epistemologicaljustification a national philosophy. 83 . his perspectivism an episas temologicaldoctrineof "the point of view" refersto his theoryof truth."8 to Now. the elder philosopher of contemporin aneos who is creditedby Ramos as the initiator the disseminationof Orteguianideas in Mexico. whateverbe theexactlabel forOrtega'smaturephilosophy.9is its farreachingcontentionthata vitalized reason (or a vitalized culture)is not only defensibleas a superiorway ofknowingbut. utilized by Ramos as an excellent warning against the artificial separation of culturefromlife."ratiovitalism"is a new name forthe old methodologicalattemptat coordinating reason and experience. it is obvious that what he in particular foundofvalue in Ortegais.but in order to understand its fullimportwe must go directly its source ofinspiration Ortega himself. likecustoms."5 writtenby Jose Romano Mufioz. Ortega formallycalled the general theory of his philosophy and perspectivismo. above all. RAMOS COMPARED In 1933.6 It should be no surprisethatwhere thereare common "circumstances" (a pet Orteguian term).a common enemy is bound to cropup sooner or laterunder thesame or different names in that ever unfinishedbattleof ideas called philosophy. "Neither Vitalismnor Rationalism. moreimportantly. respectively. the currentterm"situationism"culturalized mates the Orteguian standpointin philosophy."4is the 1927 articlein Ulises. nor but Critical Philosophy.7 racio-vitalismoStrictly speaking. what characterizesthe Orteguian doctrine of vital reason. Returningto the quoted passage fromRamos.Even thoughterms."NeitherIrrationalism Rationalism. Ramos is only indirectly interestedin these technicalmattersin in his own interests chiefly Ortega thephilosobecause lie Orteguianism.Whatis therein the to in Spanish master that inspires his Mexican disciple to tryto nationalize philosophy and culturein Mexico? ORTEGA. however.seem to best approxicome and go. As to his polar solutionto the conflict involved in the modern dispute between rationalismand vitalismon the preciseplace ofrationality in (culture)and spontaneity human life. the followingyear he gave it the awkward name of .THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTURE Mexican counterpart Ortega's 1924 polemical articlein his own Revista of de Occidente." This closof ing phrase is the key to Ramos's whole interestin the philosophy of Mexican culture.Still. UNAMUNO.his term "perspectivism"(derivedfrom Latin) correspondsto the term"phenomenalism" (derived fromGreek). while his rationalvitalismas a methodologicaldoctrineof "vital reason" refers his polar solution to "the antinomybetween lifeand culture.
that a technique must be developed for 13 sub instead ofsubspecie aeternitatis detectingreality specie instantis If all truth. In Ortega's most systematic workin philosophypublished during his lifetime (1923). it happens that the Spanish writerlikens a knower to a "sensitive net."theother in to "the moreimportant reform our sense ofreality. In content. Ortega may be regarded as the contemporary MartinLutherof Philosophy.In fact. chidingthatmodel critic all Utopian illusions forharboring the grandillusionofbelievingthatreality could everbe grasped once and for all by the human mind.El tema nuestro de tiempo (Eng. he states explicitly way of thinking of twovitalreforms.12 By way of illustration.. is philosophic an signifies absolute break with tradition'swhole universalistic concept of philosophy taken for granted throughoutthe ages.whose peculiar meshes are sensitive to some of his master'sideas but irsensitiveto others. trans. To be more as explicit. the of and an ironical confirmation this ingenious image of the knower is of Ramos himself. thathis perspectivist leads to 1931). that is.TheModern Theme. Being a model journalist himself. In form."'10 function which is purely selective. Ortega's situationaldefinition truthas a perspectiveor point of view in time and place implies a total rejection of the classical notion that any known truthis timeless and placeless. what theMexican disciple in as a knoweris ultimately interested knowingis theideological implicationsof Orteguianism a philosophy. of Withrespectto the first reform. the second fora thoroughrevisionof the nineteenth-century conception of life.Latin American Research Review pher of philosophy and life.perspectivismchanges philosophy froma search foruniversal truthswhose validityis unrestricted a search forpartial to truthswhose validity is restrictedto time and place.This takes us to the implicationsof the Orteguian way of thinkingfor the twin subjects of primary concernto Ramos as Mexican ideologist:The natureof philosophy itselfand the essence of human life.As philosophic truthso conceived so circumstances.is actually a valid but limited point of view that varies with each knower and his truth. thinks that Spinoza is incurablyabstractand naive in he of mentality.as traditionally understood. objectivelyor absolutely valid per se.simplybecause these fit as nicelyinto his own theme-the philosophy of Mexican culture. Ortega's way of thinking a vitalistic perspectivist representsa in basic reform both the formand contentof philosophy.ratherthan in Ortega the epistemologistas such.according to Orteguian perspectivism. it transforms philosophy froma concern with the problems of all reality 84 ."" The first calls for a complete repudiation of the traditional conception of philosophy.Ortega anticipatesa later idea of his. In this connection. One leads to "a radicalreform philosophy.
half within.Ramos goes one betterthanOrtegaby consistently pushing the 85 .upon entertaining refer themto the circleof our immediate This is doubtlessa experiences. Despite the objective of themwe mustwilly-nilly independent space and time.15The twofoldreason forour author's defense of the doctrinein question is: First. to speak.becausethey beingas he is vitally be fused with them. it makes him feelintellectually home in his own country at by legitimizing theoretically desire to nationalize philosophy as the his underpinning indispensable for building up a spirit of patriotismin Mexico. humanity society. and. and Ramos exploitsit fullyby restatingOrteguian perspectivismin Hacia un nuevohumanismo (1940) as follows:17 Eachindividual possessesas partofhis existence concrete a whichis the world. by the way. the society to and the country whichhe belongs. given the initialpremise. in knowsbetter thananyother thenatural is whateachsubject landscape which he lives. thatof limitation our knowledge.These concrete objectsmustperforce the whichlend lifeand colorto his generic particular instances conceptsof the or value of ideas whichis Universe.14let us see first how the Mexican author makes his own use of the Orteguianattackon the traditional cosmocentric conceptionofphilosophy.it opens a new horizon forhim by making available more possibilitiesculturally. in which the restwould neverbe in the discovering the world something to position see. The logic here is impeccable. in solewindow available himtolookoutintotheworld general. Since the passage in Ortega's Tema containing the two reformsimplied by his way of thinkingis cited with full approval by Ramos. Actually. second. stems fromWilhelmDilthey. thenby the same token so does a Mexican froma Mexican point of view."'16 The moral of the side remark is perfectly clear: If a Spaniard enjoys the rightto do so froma Spanish point ofview. also on theother of but hand an advantage. to Thatis tosay.These thingshe knowsfrom so constitute ofhimself. Apropos of all this. Ramos's stand theretois quite evident fromhis militantdefense of the Orteguian doctrineof the historicity philosophy-a doctrine of which.and at one point he perspectivism interposesthe all-telling remarkthatthose passages of "unquestionable obviousness" illlustrate how "Ortega defends his rightto construct his own philosophy fromhis personal point of view and under the perspective of Spain. Ramos in the Historia quotes some key passages in behalf of fromOrtega's Meditaciones and Tema. Ortega's thought amounts essentially to a certainsort of situationalphilosophy of culture.THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTURE (metaphysics)into a concernwith the problems ofhumanreality(metaculture).and one clear piece of evidence of such comes fromhis Mexican disciple's philosophy of Mexican culture.
the sentence Spain living under difficult 86 . because a demand for a new sense of reality entailsa correspondingchange in conceptionof philosophy. the first the two announced Orteguian reforms followfrom perspectivismas a situational conception of truth. is priorto his interestin reforming and most revealingbook. If.In retrospect.not only implies a situationalconception of philosophy generally. puts philosophyin itsplace.and you logicallyget the OrteguianHomohispanus of and the Ramosian Homo mexicanus mensura. the first reform a corollaryof the second. nationalized. it followsnecessarilythatneitherwould it appear the same today to a Spaniard in Madrid nor to a Mexican in Mexico City.likea landscape.Philosophy as thus interpreted changes masters.The conclusion is psychologicallyand culturallythe case.is really part and parcel of his second and more general reformto do is likewise with human lifeand culture. the historicity In philosophy means to Ramos its possibilityof being humanized in the concrete."'18 Nationalize theHomomensura ancient Greek Sophist of mensura (Protagoras). but Ortega goes that further infers and optimistically therefrom "reality. In the preface to the Meditaciones there is a sentence where Ordefines himselfcandidly as a man of tega.and her old role as ancilla in patriae theologiae themedieval world gives way to thenew role ofancilla just in the modern."20 If such egalitarianismin epistemology is assumed at the very to of outset. a "patriocentric"21 conception of philosophy foreach nation in the modern world.but in addition it leads to specifically what is explicitin Ramos and only implicitin Ortega. as Ortega holds. whose genealogy may be tracedall the way back to the Periclean Age's famousProtagoreanfragment: "Man is a measure of all things. to which we must now turn as a necessary del to preliminary Ramos. a word.LatinAmerican Research Review logic of perspectivism. In otherwords. in search for self-identity. to wit. as is insinuatedthroughout first taciones Quijote (1914). In Ortega's in human mentalhistory.thatis. Medihis phy.all of themequally veridicaland authentic.Spanish lifeespecially. obviously. circumstances. of course.it happens thathis interest reforming philosolife. the stubborn quest in Ramos for a national philosophy as a body of Mexican of doctrinesimplies a nationalistic interpretation philosophy itself.That is to say. Philosophers worthyof the name are not parrotsbut rarebirds! which literally Ortega's first reform. including Mexico. It should be noted in passing that the difference broughtout between masterand disciple is one of the reasons (among others) forcalling Ramos a Neo-Orteguian. though. has infinite perspectives.19the universe does not appear the same to a classical "Greek" in Athens or to a contemporary"Yankee" in New York.
the firsthaving to do with life on the biological plane. in other . the study of the mutual relations between organisms and their environment. the English version of it may be renderedfaithfully follows:"I am myself as and myenvironment. is anothersecularattempt the modernmind to of down to earth."25 words. thatman's only it.For.culturally viewed. Furtherovercoming more. Like Seneca of ancient Cordoba." Stated in abbreviated form."23 Bearing in mind its actual context. many years. with a "moralintegral In the finalanalysis. identifiesOrtega's first principle of philosophy with a secularized way of salvation. Ortega's situationalstarting pointin philosophy. half of the celebratedpassage is cited. So of course is Ramos.Ortega's starting point or prime principlein philosophy is: Ego circumstans Latin). prerequisitefor the is. notwithstanding of was academically professorof metaphysicsat the University Madrid for many.the basic proposition in the Meditaciones foreshortens Ortega's whole philosophy of life. Historicalclarification accordingly. or Mi situacion Spanish). and this is only implicitin Ortega's initialvision of the human themselves encountered in daily life are not situation. the difficulties something to balk at or cry over childishlybut represent a constant 87 .26 in Ortega it presupposes deliverance fromconfusion Hence the but and comprension his thought. in orderto save in primacyof claridad ourselves fromdifficulties surmountingthem. ifI but fail to account forit I fail to get over my difficulties. Orbring Christianity that he tega of modern Castile is a moralistat heart. his major disciple in Mexico of Mexican birth.as a result of which he has no other effective alternative than to make them intelligibleby distinguishingclearly those which hamper his lifefromthose which facilitate This idea. It signifiesthat man is confronteddaily with a great varietyof circumstances(favorable and unfavorable). It appears almost casually rightaftera briefreferenceto what we today call ecology. In traditionalChristianity salvation means deliverance fromsin. we must firstdeterby mine precisely what they are in any given situation.24 (in (in Taken in its entirety.The sentence consists of two parts. intelligentrecourse in coping with his daily difficulties resides in the proper use of his powers of understanding.THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTURE may be said to constitutehis philosophical point of departure: A first principlethat condenses his whole thought. only the first :22 fortunately Ramos quotes the entiresentence twicein theHistoria "Yo soy yo y mi circunstancia. obstaclesin our surroundings and withinourselves. but Usually.y si no la salvo a ella no me salvo yo. the second with lifeon the moral. .and in order to accomplishthatwe must delve deeply intothe particular history responsible forthem.
An indirectbut tellingconfirmation that Ortega. describeshis scheme ofreform lifestyle.belongs to the class of conquistadores. Materialiter.the Problem of Good).presumablyprevailing duringthe past century-a protestwhich reappears.itconfirms conclusion. as "God deliver us fromthe 19thcentury!. "the as sportiveand festivesense oflife.whose nature embodies the adventurous and successful side of life. Consequently. suffersfrom storywhose extremelyinfluentialdefinitionof tragedy34 ambiguity. thematically. however.ofoptimismover pessimism."35 and Orteganotwithstanding. in a playful journalistic in mood. in the face and of difficulty against odds.the Problem of Evil).picturesquely.inasmuch as its focusis on thesurmountability obstacles and conflicts. to surmountobstacles and overcomeevils of every sort until the very end. Ortega assumes thatthe generalthemeof Greek tragedyhas to do with "the problems of good and evil. as traditionalaesthetics has assumed fromtime immemorial.LatinAmerican Research Review challenge to us to create a betterworld here and now.27 The fact that the author of the Tema. For Ortega's vehementprotestagainst the the industrialspiritand defeatistattitudetoward life.but in problems of good-versus-good whether depicted in (collectively."28 his to onlyreflects antipathy the two the nineteenth-century complementary extremescharacterizing way of life in his eyes: The "deification of work"29 and the decided trend "toward pessimism.As a matter offact. 88 . Like the bulk of writerssince Aristotle.does not affect all theconclusion thatthe Castilian philosopheris an epic soul at bottom. Ortega's own perspectiveon human lifeis written of essentiallyin epicterms. in problemsof good-versusevil (collectively.31as an attackon "theinstrumental conception man"-has potenof tiallyall the earmarksof an epic revivalon a grand scale. of sportover the at workethic.subtly diffused throughout Meditaciones the earlyOrtega.His lack of sympathyfor tragic drama mars his understanding of the literary the originalculpritin the genre."and.An epic spirit. Without such creativeeffort our part no viable solution to life's problems is poson sible."30This preference itself. in spite of his and dubious claim to have anticipated German existenafterthought looks at lifeepically or adventurouslyis his positive response tialism. It is such epic spirit. thatpermeatesnot only the of the protestin the Temaagainst a humdrumexistencebut also the accompanyingplea fora new sense of reality. in the mature Ramos. in the early Ramos. quintessenceoftragedy the Aristotle not (Greek or otherwise)lies.32 33 to the Homericepic and his negativereactionto ancientGreek tragedy.all of whom in theirsundryexploitsmanage somehow. to but to He is sympathetic the former unsympathetic the latter.
Besides.36 Once we takeintoaccounttheformal difference in polarity between these two primary types of conflict man's life. takentogether. After there all. and. at the same time. paon thetic. itis therarequalityof nobleness or strength characterin a tragicperson thatdistinguishesa of tragicfigurelike the Sophoclean Antigonefroma patheticfigure like the Shakespearean Othello. Doubtless (withapologies to Aristotle again). the Problem of Good on the otherhand stands foran irresolvableconflict situationinvolvinga perplexingchoice between good andgood. Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936). Formaliter.but the Problem of Evil manifests itselfmorallyin two opposite forms:The epic and the pathetic.THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTURE literature manifestedin life. who is 39 dubbed teopoeta.While the Problemof Evil stands fora resolvableconflict situationinvolvinga clear choice between good and evil. withinthegivenplotoftheSophoclean play named after her.are equipollent but antinomic. taken separately.convey kinds of moral conflicts daily life.which personify ultimate victory the eventual triumphof good over evil.it behooves us in ideally the different when we to therefore keep in mindthepropermeaningofsuch categories come to take up the various angles to Ramos's profileof Mexican life. The nimble Castilian journalist-philosopherfrom Madrid apparently had to contend all his life with "Spanish circumin stances.epic.we in due to can then see why epic situations. Thus. the patheticdefinesone where evil overpowers good. In view of the factthat the literary categories of tragic. Whereas the epic defines a situation where good overcomes evil." and probablythe most audible of these "silent things"40 his immediate environmentwas none other than the tragic voice of the inflexible Basque poet-philosopherand professorof Greek fromnearby book MediSalamanca. spell noble of failure. two in the typesof conflict-of-value problemsdiffer radicallyin polarity.thefemalemodel ofa genuineconscientious of objectorwhose path in lifeforksat a crucial momentwhen she must of necessity choose between twogoodthings-patriotismand piety-which.which personifyinevitable defeat due to the mutual incompatibility equally worthygoods or duties at stake.the Problem of Evil and the Problem of or Good differ substantially possibilitiesof outcome. there is more to the storyas to why Ortega prefersthe "epic in perspective"38 Homer to the tragicperspectivein Aeschylus. is a world of difference between thepatheticfailure an Othello and the of tragic failure an Antigone. and why tragic situations. spell glorious success. whose hopelessly deluded mind makes him a 37 model case ofa jealous man who is just absolutelypitiful. the Problem of Good is coextensivewith the problem of tragedy. represent paradigmatically theartistic plane the in basic state of conflict the life of man.41 Ortega's first 89 .
.LatinAmerican Research Review tations Quixote. the correspondingconflict between intelligenceand unintelligence). felicitously. However odious comparisonsmay be in matters personal. The exact chronology of these two outstandingworks in contemporary Spanish philosophy is important at this juncture. Ortega himself once said.came out the year afterUnamuno's Tragic on SenseofLife (1913). by settinghis request fora complete in change of attitudetoward lifeagainst the background of Unamuno.45 perennialconflict This thumbnailcomparison between Unamuno and Ortega is of special relevance to our study of Ramos.. an unacknowledged trace of Unamuno appears. also published in Madrid. comparisonis the unavoidable instruthat ment of understanding. the epic philosopher of Spain.the functionof which is to serve as "a pair of tweezers"42forcapturinga finepoint. it can then be more easily understood believes that life's why Ortega. Like parallel lines in Euclidean geometry. Applyingthis intellectual instrumenthere. we may succinctly the difference philosophical starting put of of pointsin thetwo major thinkers twentieth-century Spain in thefollowing way. Although it is true fromthe record so far presented that the Mexican philosopher was influenced mostlyby Ortega. Unamuno and Ortega can never meet at a common point.g. his in principalcompetitor the fieldas well as his primarytargetin Spain. In any event. we can now see more clearlythe second of the two interconnected reforms Ortega. who just as firmly believes otherwise insofaras he unashamedly triesand triesto defend the actual unavoidabilityof the intrinsic opposition between the rationaland the irrational claims of life. firmly problemsare solvable in principleand why he is suspicious44 ofthe tragic philosopher of Spain. g. soon as this initialdifference opinion on conflicts As fundamentalsis fullyrecognized. at 90 .This is ultimately reason thata tragicmind and an epic mind have troubleunderstandingeach other:They are not talkingabout the same thingin life.Ortega startswith what in effect an is between good and conflicts epic sense of life centered on surmountable evil (e. because they differ completelyin theirtacitpresuppositionsas to which type of conflict (tragicor epic) is the centralto life. Viewed in this comparativelight. Whereas Unamuno startsin factfroma tragic sense of life43 centeredon insurmountable conflicts between good and good (e. Unamuno.the clear-cutdivergency between Unamuno and Ortega in theiroverallevaluationsoflifeinvolvesa fundamental difference fromthe startin the conception and solvabilityof life's of and difficulties.Period. theconflict between intelligenceand feeling).both of which are equallyjustifiablein themselvesyet in with each other.
malgre lui. but the designationis reallyappropriatetohis venerablecomicheroinMeditations on Quixote:Cervantes."and "characterology. reform. author the in published 1934a bookentitled the El Perfil Hombre la Cultura Mexico. In an autobiographical statement theHistoria. of Ortega used to pride himselfas El Espectador Spain. A reformer temperamentally an epic soul who confidently approaches obstaclesto thegood lifeas evils to be overcome throughsuch and such method or course of action. are too busy doing and undoing things to be disinterested spectatorsof the human scene.THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTURE least indirectly.what is even morerevelatory theircommon thoughtand language is theircommon spiritof reform. centralaim ofhis Mexican disciple. taking account distinctive into features ourhistory of in theform whichthelatter have shapedthepeculiar physiognomy Mexican of in man. This is evidentin his Espaiiainvertebrada de the prelude to La rebelion las masas (1930). to Philosophical meditation couldvery wellbe ofservice thedefinition theMexican of environment in thedeterminationwhatis or and of the and couldbe herculture. And yet. Basically. Ortega incarnatesthe epic or "warrior spirit"48 El Reformador."49was. positive in The parallels between Ramos and Ortega are so striking this passage thateven theformer's language smacksofthelatter's. in letus proceed to show concretely how Ramos appropriatestheOrteguian epic-oriented principleofEgocircumstans his own purposes. "physiognomy. Withthe hope of saving his own native land frominternaltroublesand foreign oblivion." "pro"47 than file.such as the Orteguian terms"environment"(circunstancia).But. is Spain. Needless to add. authoremphain the sizes thatOrtega's starting point (Ego circumstans) served him as46 had a norm applicable Mexico. author of The considered of and life prior investigation indispensable basing idealsoffuture for the Mexican upon data. attiand the self-confident Here the melioristic attitudeof the reformer is tude of the epic hero go hand in hand. above all. to whosereality whoseproblems and werecompletely in unknown philosophy. reform to saving Mexico fromsocial evil is the primemotivebehind Ramos's entire philosophy of Mexican culture. the Similarly. reserving for the nextsection of our essay forsome details on how he is promptedby the Orteguianprotestagainst European lifein the nineteenth centuryto reform Mexican lifesince independence fromSpain. whichan attempt madefor del y en in was first time explore to philosophically historical ofMexicofor the past purposesof the of life might constitute and traits herpresent that explaining clarifying specific this a sort characterologytheMexican hisculture. of whethertheywield a sword Warriors.what Ortega wanted to (1921). or a pen. the Orteguian and 91 .With theseobjectives mind. Spain's greatestspectatorand communicatorof the human comedy. his (Ramos's) complexthought. This hope of thesalvationofMexico.in the meantime.who had "faithin Mexico. hopefully.
Technicallyspeaking."and. El perfil hombre la cultura Mexico.to Mexico's.AlfredAdler).This taskcalled foran interpretation our history of and led to the discoveryof certainnational vices. the influence of his Spanish mentor's Espania invertebrada thePerfil so obvious thatperhaps he feltno need on is of referring specificallyto it. what the two works share. As "Mexican. the Mexican writer paraphrases Alexander Pope."53 Thus. the after fallofSpain in 1898. the RAMOS ON THE MEXICAN AND HIS CULTURE The book in which our Mexican author spells out the reform his own for countryis.had the least and Adler the greatest impacton his thought. Freud. correspondingto the former's "psychological history"50 Spanish cultureas the proper way to Spain's problems is of of the latter'spsychoanalytic history Mexican cultureas the properway.his most del y en publicized work. of course. Carl Jung.know thine. Althoughhe makes no specificmentionofOrtegain the firsttwo editions (1934. ofthe "Big Three" (Sigmund Freud.is a common purpose and method of approach. "the proper study of the Mexican is the Mexican. At any rate. 1938).know thy circumstances.Ramos did so after riseofMexicoin 1910. the knowledge ofwhich seems to me indispensable as a point of departurefora serious undertakingof of the spiritualreform Mexico.Ramos convenientlytells the reader what his task is all about in a single para"The basic idea of thisbook grew out of its author's ambitionto graph:52 which would explain thereal character Mexican man establisha theory of and his culture. in Ramos. After while Ortegawrote all. Restated stansand the logicalresultis the former's in classical terms." We may inferfromthis briefstatementthat the starting point of Ramos's philosophy of Mexican cultureis the Mexican counterpartof Ortega's situationalpointofdeparture. and. the founderofthe movement. the Orteguian and Ramosian philosophical starting points really boil down to: "Spaniard.Mexicanize thelatter's circumEgo Mexicanus circumstans.51 In the Prologue to the thirdedition (1951) of the Perfil. Ramos took much more seriouslythan Ortega the then-popularmovementofpsychoanalysis. 92 ." respectively. Correspondingto Ortega's objectiveto "create a new type of Spaniard" withan epic "sense ofconfidence"is Ramos's desireto createa new typeofMexican. in turn.LatinAmerican Research Review Ramosian proposals fornationalreform varyin actualcontent because the "circumstances"in each are quite different. thethemeofMexico and her destinyis raised in principle to a philosophical level of utmostimportance:The subjectis no longera mere national pastime or touristattraction. besides theirgeneral epic spirit.and.
althoughtheirreasons fordisliking differ what."54 This is why he submitsan historical "Psychoanalysisof the Mexican"55as the precondition for improving the national characterof the Mexican people and facilitating nationalization philosophyand culturein Mexico.Whetherhe diagnoses themwell or. I have the of already examined the psychoanalytic part of his work elsewhere.61Therefore."imitation"ofEuropean and Anglo-American "are ways of culturein particular. theauthorofthePerfil statesthatin his "essay a methodical applicationof Adler's psychologicaltheoriesto the Mexican is attempted forthe first time. is so 93 . who once characterized Maintaining himself "the legitimate as father theinferiority of complex.it is not at all surprisingthat than Ramos no more likes the nineteenthcenturyin Mexico particularly it someOrtega does generally." As a matterof fact.his whole at can son earnesteffort reform be put quite simply.As bothfaithful ofthe MexicanRevolutionand faithful discipleofOrtega. calling.56Suffice it to say that Ramos's psychohistoryof Mexico leans heavily on concepts borrowed fromJungand fromAdler."59 Ramos's thesis is thatcertainexpressions of Mexican life. like an overeager psychiatrist.theSpanish castigator of the Spaniards par excellence. He compensatingforan unconscious sense of inferiority. forthatmatter.are specialistsas towhichvices toremove by and whichvirtuesto improve. are diagnosable at all on a national scale.but stressesthattheydid notreally surfaceuntil the struggleforpoliticalindependence at the beginningof the last century."57 thatthepersonality typeapt to acquire an inferiority complexis a Jungian "58 "introvert.his to it Adlerianimage of the Mexican people is not only farfrompretty. Ramos is telling and urging his own to as countrymen replace theirnegative "sense of inferiority" a people and about theiractual circumstances with a positive "sense of reality"62 futurepossibilities. when the disparity between ambitionsand capabilities became painfullyevident. reportedly."60 recognizes that germs of the Mexican syndrome were latent during the Spanish Conquest and ColonizationofMexico. is beside the point here.In thespecific case ofour author. ills ambitiously undertakestheimmensejob ofdiagnosingthespiritual of his country resorting Adlerian psychoanalysisas the masterkey to by to the Mexican malady caused. The profileRamos draws of the typicalpost-Independence Mexiat can is not flattering all. All reformers.Ramos had studied medicine fora number of years he before going into philosophy and.THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTURE in on Ramos insiststhat"any realreform Mexican lifedepends first a profound reformin the characterof our people. a collectivefeelingof inferiby whetherthey ority. and he deserves considerablecreditforat least the courage of attempting "tell it like it is.
otheris the subtletragic and the image. a valid image of the drama ofAmerica?Today veryserious problems persistbecause of the schism between the cultureinspired in our cathedrals.69 Ramos not only generalizes him but senses that the schism between the two heritages of Hispanic America (Pagan and Catholic) 94 . thegoal being thecreationofa human typesuperiorto the existing.so that"its faultsmay be correctedand its to virtuesdeveloped.65 In myjudgment. connectionwith the acute observationthathe is an exemplarycase of Spanish individualism: "The curious thingabout Spain is that there one can become an individualistto virtually any extremeand stillbe a Spaniard." coin the to properwords forthe difference. thesecond correspondstohis "tragi-analysis."63 Fortunately." In view of thispenetrating analysis in Ramos of his own America.theprofoundest thingin thePerfil thefollowing is statement connectingthe lyriccryof the Nicaraguan poet with the tragic history Hispanic America:66 of "Ruben Darlo once criedthathis soul was the object of contention'between the Cathedral and pagan ruins.to make all future teaching relevant the Mexican spirit. When the our two heritagesmet theycould not be combined in the creationof a new synthesis.One is the obvious pathetic image developed at lengthby Ramos himself(as social reformer) discussed by his critics.perhaps."64But.however. there are really not one but two images of the Mexican in the Perfil. apart fromtheirheterogeneity. accordingto him.LatinAmerican Research Review in absolutely patheticthat no wonder he pleads fora complete reform Mexican life. thefirst image correspondsto Ramos's "patho-analysis" oftheMexican.68 Porfirist statesmanwho is articulate about theunique dual ancestry theMexican of people. what exactlyis the underlyingreason for the drama or tragicstoryof Hispanic America in general and Mexico in particular?The concise answer may be put in the fitting phrase of Carlos Vaz Ferreira. thisleads to the As indirect but deep-rooted influenceof Unamuno on our author. the Poet of Nicaragua.and the other. anticipatedalready. whose guidingprincipleshould be. in Unamuno is mentionedonly once in thePerfil.' Isn't this.another admirer of Unamuno and the fundador Uruguayan philosophy: No of synthesisofthetwo culturesinvolvedwas possible because of"theclashof ideals. the in influenceof Unamuno on Ramos appears indirectly and profoundly a referenceto an admirerof the Basque poet: Ruben Darlo. leftundeveloped by Ramos (as cultural historian)and ignored by his If commentators.especially in the crucialarea of Mexican education."67 Reflecting the historianand possibly on JustoSierra.which emanates from ruins.
it could be said that his tragedy consistsin the clash between a greatmoralneed to reform Mexico. and an equally greatintellectual need to acknowledge thehard facts of her complicated history. "the sympatheticsketch of the contemporary of tragic philosopher"70 Italy. His tragedyconsistedin the clash between a greatneed forfaith and an enormous criticalpower which made him sink constantlyinto doubt. He was a man athirst faith. on the one hand. he would have come to the sobering of a so conclusionthattheyhave notsuffered much from purelyhypothetical 95 ." Had the matureRamos taken seriouslyhis own earlyinsightinto Papini's lifeand developed it. cultural Nevertheless. irrespectiveof personal wishes or culturalbiases.our authorstillretainsa tragicstrainin his complexlifeand thought.but who could not believe. lest thisparticular reference the tragic to Problemof Good in thelifeofa people be consideredan isolated phenomenon in our Mexican author. the historical factis thatthe epic elementwins out over the tragicelementin Ramos. For. even with all his vigorous campaign against the alleged fictitious way of lifein Mexico and his epic call fora Mexican Reformation. Ramos. and historiography must respect the actual facts. in a word. he would have become the tragicphilosopher of Mexico. as one swallow does not make a summer. This tragic conflictof interestsis reflectedsubtly but unmistakablyin the subdued tone of Ramos as disinterested observerof Mexican life.originally.72On analogy with Papini. in Ramos was partially aware of the unavoidable difficulties inherent his whole enterpriseof national reform. ends up epically as a rebent as he understandablyis on improvingthe lot of his fellowformer. but If the author had pondered further the ever fascinatingsubject of the mestizobirth the Mexican people. But." This is evident.to repeat. especially since he could not completelyeradicatefrom mind the tragic his ramifications the dual ancesof tryof his own country.Listen life to theunusual insightoftheyoung Ramos intothetragic ofPapini as a conscientiousagnostic:71 the "Papini was religiousfrom beginningofhis for spiritualadventures.it should be added thatthe earlyRamos was quite aware of the Unamunian "tragicsense of life.on the other.priorto his conversionto Catholicism.forone thing.THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTURE signifies tragicconflict culturesarisingout of theirinherentincoma of patibility ways of life. as a true Mexican with a mestizo background. Mexicans.born fromthe highly delicate marriageof two alternative heterogeneoustypesofculture:Spanish and Amerindian. His Perfilbears authenticwitness to this turn of events.from his writerGiovanni Papini. as And.
In the first place. his first book.as a good reformer had to disregard. SOME CRITICAL COMMENTS ON RAMOS I would like to sum up by stating briefly own reservations Ramos's my to bold attemptto nationalize philosophy in general and philosophy of to was made at theoutset. especially since we expected fromRamos notmerelya psychologyor a sociologyofMexican culturebut a philosophy of it. The reason thatthe Mexican author hardlygoes beyond his programmatic intentions makinga positivecase fora nationalphilosophy of 96 .philosophically? The authorofthePerfil thinksso.To put my culturein particular. "their antisocial nature. but he is not too convincing. though Ramos sensed that the tragic story of Mexico is marked throughoutwith a dramaticquality of conflicting forcesreprehe sentingclashing ideals of lifeand culture."73 otherwords.Even so."74 But. with the laterRamos of the Perfil (1934) reveals a definiteshiftof philosophic interestfromUnamuno to Ortega.the work is in the main a wellintentioned but amateurishdiagnosis ofthe Mexican psychology. of the abnormalbehavior imputed throughouttheirpostcolonial history to the Mexican people as a whole. It is not clear fromthe internalevidence of the book itself. the extentthatthisis trueour Mexican moralist definitely To is a neo-Orteguian. thata comparisonof the earlyRamos of theHipotesis (1928). whetheritis "a serious essay on social psychology.an intellectualproject possible of realization. what he realized as a good historian." our author's professed area of interestinspiredby Ortega's situationalviews (including those on Spanish and European culture). can hardly ignore the complexityand tragedyoflife. thereis an ambiguity to what Ramos's Perfil as is all about."on "characterology" and "philosophyofculture. does in nowise mean thathe losthis tragic sense ofhistory A altogether.LatinAmerican Research Review complex inferiority from veryreal complexity theirpeculiarand of as the of precariousoriginsas newborn childrenof Indo-Spain. however. to be sure.no matter how energetically triesto do so in theinterest he ofreform. the common denominatorof whose charactertraitsis."or a seriesof"notes on Mexicanpsychology" or on "a Philosophy ofMexican History. allegedly. is it a contriIn bution to the psychology to the philosophy Mexican culture? or of Judged fromits actual contents.thatis. sensitive Mexican like Ramos. there is somethingwrong somewhere. whichreference in reservations the formof an embarrassing question: Is "the philosophy of Mexican culture.forpolitical and moral reasons. whose hybridsoul is tragically tornbetween her Catholic and Aztec heritages. True.
strictly speaking.to end on a more positivenote.he is prudentenough (in principle)to steera middle course (criollismo) between an extreme indigenismand an extreme Europeanismin his approach to Mexico's national culture. is thathe reallycannot. Apparently.ex hypothesi. Finally. that the ideal of Mexican culture should aspire to the goal of Ortega's to "general human culture. he. wants to have his two cakes and eat he them! This wavering on his part is another sign of ambiguity.as clarity the cardinalvirtue to is of man. Ramos in the last analysis thinks. Furthermore. As the earlyRamos initially realized only too well. was pointedout at as the very beginning.of which his search fora national philosophyformsan integralpart. ifso. brand of tequila. Orteguiansespecially. "the achievementof a new humanism. Ramos is no Mexican chauvinistbecause. Such in ambiguityis fatalparticularly philosophy. the kind thatcan is coexistwithus and appropriately Such definition express our spirit. philosophyas such belongs to "the sphere of the universal"75and.This correction nomenclature in withhis own definition Mexican culture. to avertthe riskofbeing misundershould have called it properly. where clarity of the esis sence. stood."79 wit.thisis why our authorcontends thathis two or a books." but a brand of philosophy cannot(at least. philosophy of culture from Mexicanpointofview. of a say.THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTURE ofMexico. this is all the more reason forthe necessityof differentiating clearlyand distinctly between philosophy as a country'sculturalactivity and a national philosophy as a propaganda piece. so ambiguity his cardinalvice. 97 . Ironically. which fits of by he means "universal culturemade over into our own. Fortunately. as an Orteguianperspectivist. are logically"interrelated. philosophy ofMexicanculture(or history) A cannot be philosophy except by fiat. is In the second place. which is beginningto learnat long last fromdaily events that thereare no chosen people of cultureexcept for those who still continue to be naively or complacentlyblind to social reality.76 Yet. the name "philosophy ofMexican culture"in Ramos is reallya misnomerbecause. despite his theoretical strictures culturalextremism Mexico. Ramos in fact on in unfortunately wavers between a universalistand a nationalistapproach 77 to Mexican culture. for example. for one thing.despite his occasionally strongnationalistic bias to the contrary."78 notonlyofinterest social philosophybutpregnantwithculturalsignifito cance forall of us. Profile Man and Culturein Mexico(1934) and Toward New Huof manism one being the consequence of (1940). For it invitesus to reassess the distinctive servicethatMexico's own contributions culturecould rento der in thiscompactworld ofours."80Rightly wrongly. can be marked "Made in Mexico. be we Mexican or not. notin thesame sense).
p. trans. JoseVasconcelos and Manuel Gamio. Goethedesde dentro(Madrid: Revista de Occidente. p. El temade nuestro tiempo. stillholds independentlyas the perfect guide to lifeforall eventualitiesfacingpersons and peoples."Know thyself. 1933). which. Ortega. 151."reprinted Obrascompletas. 149. 9.trans. Ibid. Historia. p. 270-80. pp. ni JoseRomano Mufioz. ed. may alertus to the current dangers of a computerizedworld. 5. Ortega. 1955).LatinAmerican Research Review theother. is philosophy at its best regardless of when and where. and El problema Mexico la ideologia de y nacional (Mexico City:Cultura. see my essay on "Don Antonio Caso y las ideas contemporaneas en Mexico" in the joint memorial volume. 6.designed to check the dehumanizationof man by focusingon our need ofacquiringa highersense ofvalues. 1925). and Concord Liberty. 1922). p. 8th in of Ramos. 3 (Madrid: Revista de Occidente..PeterG. Ramos is deeply troubled over the untold harm that the Colossus of modern technologymay be doing to the human spirit. vol. Discursos la naci6nmexicana a (Mexico City:LibreriaPorruia. 96. 3. and Indologia(Barcelona: Agencia Mundial de Libreria. en 1943). 1962). especially Antonio Caso. 8.1947).His sober reflections on the thornysubject froma Mexican standpoint should elicit a timelyresponse fromall of us presentlyconcerned over the looming shadow of modern civilizationand the Orwellian predicamentof contemporary man. and Jose Vasconcelos. ifitis nottoo late or too early. In sum. Samuel Ramos. 77-91. the ancientbut triedpreceptof the Platonic Socrates on the primacyof selfturns examination. For such passing allusions in theirideologicalwritings Mexico and kindredmatters on vide as speculativeantecedentsofthe methodicaland soberworkofRamos in the field. 98 . 1926). "Ni Vitalismoni Racionalismo. Like many a vigilanthumanist and scientisteverywheretoday.1924). There are foureditions ofEl perfil hombre la cultura y 2. 7. in 5th JoseOrtegay Gasset. thetwo leading philosophersoftheprevious generation(1910) in Mexico. ed. Ortega. La raza c6smica(Paris: Agencia Mundial de Libreria. under whatever culture. pp. who seems to be frantically stockpiling manifoldsortsof information the expense ofthevitalsearchforwisdom. Centro de Estudios Filos6ficos. Weyl (New York: Norton. pp.after at all. 1 (1927):4-10. 4."to which Ramos himselfultimately as the proper antidote for Mexico to the pathetic "self-denigration"82 ascribed by him to his own Mexican people with remedial purposes in mind. p. Profile Man and Culture Mexico. (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. xxiv. 1962).p.. also. 153. Earle (Austin:University of del en Texas Press. Ramos. Historiade la filosofia Mexico(Mexico City:ImprentaUniversitaria. 1946). 108."'81 any case. NO TE S 1. p.his neo-humanisIn ticperspectiveon life.H.sino filosofia critica. "Ni irracionalismo racionalismo. HomnenajeAntonio a Caso (Mexico City:EditorialStylo.1927). Aspects MexicanCivilization of (Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. 184. 3-102. The name "Contemporaneos" forRamos's generationderives froma literary societyand journal founded in 1928 by a Mexican group ofyoung writers. For of withthe Bergmore details on the general dissatisfaction Ramos and his generation in sonian romanticism Caso and Vasconcelos." Ulises.
Invertebrate Spain.. p. 38. 13. 150.THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTURE 10. Tema. Cf. Bakewell. 73." 1928). Historia.. 35.. 153. p. In popular diction. 91.. 30. Tragic Publications. 27. Ramos. Ortega. 97. 1960). 26. (New York: Charles Scribner'sSons. 31.p. pp. Aristotle. The presentwriter has since developed the formaltypologyof life'sconin flicts severalpublicationson medicalethics. 42. p. 150. 39. 18. Poetics. SenseofLife. p. 101. p. Ortega. p.6. 1. coins the word "patriocentrism. 21. p. 19..Inc. 43. Ibid.. Ibid. 1951. Ortega. 22. 24.Meditaciones. Ibid. why would we persist in the errorof calling Shakespeare's Othelloa tragedy?) In either case.Hacia un nuevo humanismo (Mexico City:La Casa de Espafiaen Mexico. 99 . 125. whether tragedyis made descriptiveof some disaster or pathos. G. pt.MakingoftheMexicanMind (Lincoln: University Nebraska Press. 32. 98. 9. La esenciade la filosofia (Mexico City: Filosofiay Letras. 37. 20.tragedyis always confused with an unforeseenand terrible confused with the pathetic.E. pp. 34. rev. mishap. pp. to mi situaci6n the earlier.pp. Ramos.J.butthedistinction between theProblem ofEviland theProblemofGood is as applicable to theintellectual to themoralside of as life. p. p. PatrickRomanell. Meditaciones. 15.. 91-94. 38. Charles M. 1938.pp. Mi vida in the later Ortega is equivalent.p. 100. Ramos is the translatorof Wilhelm Dilthey. del in Ibid. 47. Historia. 1939). with thereby losing itsproperidentity the rarerbut more poignant Problem of Good in life. 28.. 125. p. Is Aeschylus the teopoeta Ortega's blind forUnamuno. p. (Madrid: Revista de Occidente. Meditaciones Quijote. Ortega. p. Ortega. Ibid. Profile. 499. 29. 67.. Ibid. trans. trans. p.. Ortega. 44. Ibid. 100. Tema. 1963). Ortega.1941). 1954). 2 (New York: Holt. p.. of 1952). of course. pp. 36. p. 22. 14. 41. ed. Triptico (Buenos Aires: Espasa-Calpe Argentina. Tragedy and tragicare two of the most grosslymisunderstoodwords in our vocabulary. 179. Historia. Meditaciones. Hip6tesis (1924-1927) (Mexico City:Ediciones de "Ulises. 92. 17. 40. 25. Mexico(1934. p. Ortega. 5-8.5thed.. 33. Rinehartand of 3rd Winston. 92. 13. Ramos. 40. p. 12. pp. 130-32.A History Philosophy. Ibid.1940). Concord. and Ramos. ed.p. 37.p. 1944). p. Invertebrate Spain. 150.Mildred Adams (New York: Norton. 18. 11. Ibid. p.p. the tragicquality of experiencegets associated by mistakewith the common Problemof Evil in the world offactand fiction. thetheologicalpoet ofcontemporarySpain? Ortega. 1937). 65. 124-27. 13. 16. Ortega.Meditaciones. CrawfordFitch(New York:Dover Miguel de Unamuno. Ortega. Fuller. B. 1958). ed. Ibid. Ortega. the Englishtranslation Ramos's majorworkis based of on the thirdedition(1951). 90-101. Source Book in AncientPhilosophy.. Tema. and in the aestheticfieldthe tragicis ordinarily (Otherwise. A. Ramos. 1449b 23. 99. 23." Ramos.
36.Ramos is annoypp. Ramos. 128. pp. theform "inferiority pp. 22. Ortega. 15-72. 9-10. p. 153. 128. 17). 63. Ibid. 35. 58. no. Ibid. 131.Invertebrate Spain. Ibid. 73-76. 133. 65. Unamuno(Buenos Aires: Losada. 5.forthegeneralreference "a characterology peoples and p. "Psicoanalisis. 72. pp. 102. of 55. pp... 73. 87. 60. 138. MakingoftheMexicanMind. ciencia problematica.. Ibid. 67. Ramos. p..LatinAmerican Research Review 45. As is well known. 51. Historia. p. pp. Cf.trans. 11. 70. Ramos. 72. 143." La Naci6n (Buenos Aires: March 1909). Profile. 56. 69.. 168. Profile. 4. 29.Goethe. ed. 71. p. 1971). 26. The earlierSpanish analogue of pp. 39. see his 1911 article. 131. 216-37. 4. to of 47. TragicSense. videVaz's Tresfil6sofos la vida:Nietzsche. Veinte ainos educaci6n Mxico (Mexico City:ImprentaUniversitaria.is the cardinal sin of the complex" (AlfredAdler) or autodenigraci6n Mexican forRamos (Profile. Ibid. pp. Profile. 54. Hip6tesis. Ramos. pp..p. Ortega.ThePolitical Evolution theMexicanPeople. p. 74. 56.p. de en p. pp. Ibid. 19). "Ortega in Mexico: A Tributeto of Samuel Ramos. 9. in of abyecci6n (Goethe. 1969).. 31. 169. Ibid. 130-36. p. 56. tellectualrelationswith Unamuno. 52. to VideRamos. Monograph Series.30 June1958. p. 174." Journal theHistory Ideas 21 (1960): 600-608. Ruben Dario.. 163-66. p. 62. (Carlos Pereyra). Ramos. Ramos."reprinted ObrasCompletas. 18.p. 62. 49. 46. Ramos.". 59. 132. 7-8. 64. The Orteguian counterpartof the Ramosian characterology the (1923) Mexican is"Toward a TopographyofSpanish Arrogance. 48. Ramos. For Ortega's critical stand on Freudian psychoanalysis. book review of the of 13 Mexican Education in in 344-46. 124.. Curiouslyenough the latter. For his inCarols Vaz Ferreira. Profile. 108. Profile. 62. Ramos's problem of cultural assimilation in Mexico is the hispanizante-versus-europeizante grand debate in Spain. of Cultural Perspective. 80. pp. p. 1965). Ramos. Ivie (University Arizona: College of Education. 56. thisveryinconsistencyonly points to the tragicclash withinthe Mexican author himselfas a mestizo mentality.. 100 . Stanley D. pp. 11. 199-241.1961). p. 32-49.p. Time. 106-8.. in Revistade Occidente and reprintedin Goethe whose opposite is Ortega thinks that the cardinal sin of the Spaniard is soberbia. Charles Ramsdell (Auof stin:University Texas Press. 1941). 75. of Ramos. 68. Profile. Profile. pp. Estudios filos6ficos de James. 161-66. 61. 23-24. 50. 85. in of but inglyinconsistent his treatment Mexico's cultural mestizaje. Justas Ortega had built up a case of against slavishimitation Europe in Spain. (Buenos Aires: Aguilar. 97-98. 4. p. 76. 273. in vol. pp.Invertebrate Spain. "Unamuno poeta. pp. JustoSierra. Ibid. 53. Hip6tesis. pp. forreferences Sierra. pp. Inter-American ofBibliography(1963): Review 57. Ortega. 32. Ibid. p. races. Ramos. To complicatematters. so Ramos does likewiseagainst"Mexican mimesis" (ibid. Ibid. Profile.."published originally desdedentro (1933). 70. Profile. 59. 48. 1. Romanell. pp. 77. p.. 136). Ibid. 109. Unamuno. 63. 110-25. 66.
17. similarly is pretentiousto philosoit phize about man likewise. witnessonce of more (in new form)the tragicdilemmaofRamos the neo-Orteguian(1943) and Ramos the neo-humanist(1951). p.ifitis pretentious p. 82. Ramos trieddesperatelyin the end to as him squarely as pioneer defender of the avoid an unavoidable choice confronting nationalizationof the Mexican mind.. 12. 72. flatly to contradicts originalOrteguianrevoltagainst the universalistic his claim and aim of traditionalphilosophy-which (to recallhis own words) "has always pretendedto look at the thingsfrom standpointofman in general" (Historia. man 72. p. Ramos. 97-98. 39. ironically enough. 108. p. Profile. Ramos does not seem to realize thathis veryacknowledgment. Ibid. 149). pp. as postulated in the author's particular scheme of thought. pp. For.but not both at the same time. 154-56). 79. hand. 101 .. Eitherideal of man may be defended separately(in theoryat least) withoutclashingwith the other. withoutreference any case in particular"(ibid. Besides. p.THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTURE 78. p.. 154). Ramos. 80. and the neo-humanistuniversalizedideal ofthecomplete as such (Hacia. Profile. Ibid. Despite thisexplicitcontention his in thePrologue to thethird of editionof that theProfile (1951). "the problem of the essence of man is a question of general nature which should be treatedinabstracto. are individually attractivebut mutually exclusive: The neo-Orteguian localized ideal of Mexicanman in the concrete(Profile.except by compromisingthe theoretical issue eclectically. as reflected subtlyin his unconscious shift fromone idea of philosophy (the antitraditional) another (the traditional). p. 149).This dilemma in Ramos to the neo-humanisticnationalistof Mexico originatesfromhis whole effort do equal to justice to two ideals of man which. Ortega. 12.Invertebrate Spain. Even so. 12). 81.. to philosophize about the universe in abstracto. on the one pp. on the other. the prefatory acknowledgment itselfof 1951 also destroysRamos's own originalneo-Orteguian basis for"the epistemological justification a nationalphilosophy" (ibid.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.